I’m off to Oz in a few days to join the Greenbird team and attempt to take the world land speed record – powered only by the wind.

Greenbird, the awesome looking craft in the picture above, we named as a nod to Donald Campbell and his historic Bluebird. We reckon the world is at a watershed, the age of fossil fuels is passing and we’re moving (back) to the age of renewable energy – Greenbird symbolises this perhaps better then anything else.

Donald broke his records in the golden age of fossil fuels, the age of big engines and abundant, energy dense fuels. We’re going to break ours with no engine, no fuel and no pollution – using just the wind.

We’re trying to raise a serious question too. How are we all going to be getting around in a world without oil?

I reckon it’ll be with wind powered cars. Check out this illustration sent to us by Dave Mills, I think it’s really cool. Not exactly what we have in mind but really cool.

Greenbird is our F1 car, a highly technical, pretty impractical, single purpose thoroughbred machine, we know you couldn’t go to the shops in. But we have a second generation wind car on the way – that you could use day to day. More on that later.

We need to do about 120 mph to scoop the record, and if the wind blows we’re very confident we’ll get there.

Right now the Salt lake we’re using for the attempt is flooded, and there’s no wind – both unusual this time of year. So it’s all against us.

But we have another 10 days of weather window and have our fingers crossed.

You can find out more, and follow our progress at greenbird.co.uk, we’ll keep the zerocarbonista site updated too.

Finally, thanks massively to Fred Chambers for sending us the image below, of a land yacht from 100 years ago, on the same lake we’re using. I think it’s just awesome.

Thanks Chris and Graham. The answer to your question is I don’t believe in carbon offsetting.

In principle I think it’s wrong – it’s a displacement of responsibility. In practice it distracts from the real issue – the need to reduce our own carbon footprints by changing the way we live.

Offsetting emissions, from people (usually) in the developing world, is an easy way out for people ‘in the west’ that are starting to be aware of the issues – too easy though as it allows them to avoid the more difficult step of reducing their own consumption, by behaviour change.

It’s a cheap and cheerful conscience salve.

The developing world only accounts for 3% of global emissions anyhow, so even if we offset 100% of their emissions (which is nowhere near
possible) we’d be nowhere near tackling climate change. It’s not a viable solution when seen in that light, just an easy out for people that actually need to bite the bullet – and look closer to home.

I believe that the projects supported are often worthwhile though, and I believe in giving – just not the illusory taking back of a carbon credit.

Cheers.

Justin Segrave-Daly

September 2, 2008 at 1:35 pm

Dear Dale,

My Great Uncle Sir Henry Segrave broke and held the world landspeed record, in fact he held three land speed records and the water speed record and was the first person to hold both simultaneously.

On the 29th March 1927 in his 1000 HP Sunbeam Mystery (also known as ‘the Slug’), he was the first person to travel at over 200 mph (320 km/h.

Having worked as a project manager at the Ecotech Centre in Norfolk and now a sustainability consultant in energy and renewables I hold great affection for Ecotricity.

I would like to wish you all success with the record attempt; I hope that you may be the first person to break the 200mph barrier in the Greenbird. Funnily enough Sir Henry’s car was a Sunbeam, if I ever have the money I will be investing in a PV car and attempting a few world records myself!

Thanks Justin, we’re not hoping to go quite as fast as 200 mph, not this year anyway. 120 will break the record. Very interested to read about your great uncle, pretty amazing stuff. I’m old enough to remember Sunbeam cars… We’re also taking a shot at the ice record and it’s not beyond possibility that we extend to a water version.

Always good to hear from someone who’s worked at Ecotech, we’ve big plans for it next year, having recently saved it from insolvency.
Cheers.

Great comments on offsetting Dale. But if you don’t believe in carbon offsetting, and you do believe in looking closer to home, can you still believe in Flying to Australia? Can you still believe in Motorbikes?

Selena

September 12, 2008 at 2:07 pm

sorry left my comments on the wrong page. Just pretty het up re your trip to Aus Dale! Only just found your blog page and wonder how you justify the carbon emissions from such a flight to do what? An ego trip in a wind powered car! Better you spend your time living in the real world where normal people are trying to do their bit for the planet. Success and huge subsidies often have the habit of elevating people beyond their station in life!

It’s OK Selena you can breathe easily – I didn’t go to Oz, I waited in the UK for a last minute call that the weather window had arrived which of course it didn’t.

I think you’re being a bit harsh here BTW, bit spiteful even.

I’d be pleased to hear, from you as a normal person living in the real world – all about what you are actually doing to fight climate change – shall we compare notes? I’ll kick off, I’m an ex hippie traveller that spent the last 15 years ‘doing something’ and this year will save 100,000 Tonnes of CO2 from being emitted into the atmosphere. Your go…..

Sometimes feeling small and unable to effect things much makes people angry and rude below their usual selves.

I understand that, it’s a classic modern phenomenon, as is knocking people for the things they do – always easier than doing something yourself.

Sit back and take in the big picture, the world won’t be saved or condemned by one more person flying to Oz – it won’t be condemned or saved by this record attempt either of course – but we’ve grabbed headlines all over the world and our intrinsic message is fossil fuels are running out, we need a new way to power our lives. I think that’s easily worth the few tonnes of CO2 a ‘jaunt to Oz to burnish my ego’ would have cost – had I gone.

As an ex hippie traveller myself I sometimes wonder about my footprint “as a normal person living in the real world”. Then I remember that at home we have biomass heating, solar PV and make biodiesel. Then in the make believe world 9am-5pm advising architects, small businesses and local government about sustainability, energy and carbon I feel much better.

I will try to calculate my carbon offsetting and see if I can trade it for a flight to Oz, someone is bound to buy it!

Shame you didn’t make it to Oz Dale, I was looking forward to hearing of you breaking a record or two.

I just discovered your blog – dont usually waste my time on those things but hey..you are an exception.

Now onto carbon offsets. I think your view on carbon offsets is missing something and so flawed: The reason why is that your justification for not supporting it relies on voluntary human change to happen within a timescale which we dont have! Consequently there is only one solution – which roughly means we have to work with what we’ve got. By that I mean work within realistic limits of what can change within the decade we have left to make a significant carbon change.

Its only realistic that to achieve the level of carbon change within the short space of time we have left (if we are to prevent irreversible climate change and < 60% species extinction) then we must trade quotas of carbon. Why? Because a combination of the free market economy – as an institutional force – intrinsically prevents the governments taking the domestic measures necessary to reach the required carbon reduction levels. Free market economy wont change quick enough – and individual efforts wont be enough. Given that .. the only hope left is the successor to the bali summit in terms of agreements on tradable quotas internationally. The world needs to get big business on board – with all its imperfections.. then improve those imperfections later. Carbon offsets are a part of any sensible tradable carbon quota system.

“Carbon offsets” the term is a little unclear of course. It can range from paying a premium which pays into a fund which builds new renewable capacity (the best kind of offset I think) to replacing light bulbs in third world countries to reduce fossil fuel consumption (pretty open to abuse that one). So to dismiss carbon offsets – is to dismiss part of the package of the overall solution.

Now there is nothing wrong with a good holiday though, that can keep up your spirit & being ‘well spirited’ leads to more progressive work. In your case of course you have already offset your trip to Oz (had you made it) by the amount carbon emissions prevented due to your windmills reducing the amount of fossilfuel burned by a tiny fraction. So I dont have a problem with you not buying them – however please have another think about the “offsets” issue in the context of an international carbon trading system and the reality of the world being time-poor.

Otherwise, please keep up the Good work Dale

(In fact Dale I would like to set up something with you to help fund “new build” which would be marketed as offsets – but might warrant a rebranding of the term – in the same way as the title “ecotricity” was a kind of new definition.

Talk to you again soon – as I’m back in town and ready to get stuck into something new – Adi

You say that I’m against carbon offsetting because I believe instead in voluntary actions to fight climate change.

That’s not what I believe and in any event I think you misunderstand what carbon offsetting is – it is voluntary action. My point is that I’m against gestures and easy ways out that allow people to duck the big issues – lifestyle changes themselves. I believe that offsetting should begin at home – as real reduction measures.

I’m for all sorts of free market initiatives, carbon trading included – just wish those running it would get the allowances right so that it started to bite already (9 Million spare tonnes of allowances in the UK this year apparently – would cost £250 million to retire, just to make allowances balance with pollution).

I don’t agree that carbon offsetting should be part of any sensible trading system, as you say. Reason is my other big point – carbon offsetting is focussed on the developing world – non Kyoto countries – and they are responsible for just 3% of the worlds CO2 emissions. How on earth can offsetting have a serious role to play when even if it could be 100% successful (and the laws of diminishing returns will ensure it can’t be anywhere near that) – it’s only targeting 3% of global emissions. We need to target the other 97% first and most – and that’s much closer to home.

I think carbon offsetting is a fudge, an easy conscience salve – it’s a voluntary action that most of its proponents would defend by saying it’s a start, it gets people thinking and gives them an easy way to start. There may be some merit in that argument. It’s the same one used in the context of Micro-generation, and I get it. The dangers are the same too though – of distraction, of hype beyond real merit and wasted resource.

As you say, we don’t have long. That requires focus on the most effective measures with the biggest potential contribution.

Crumbs – this needs a bit of unpicking! Your description of carbon offsets is admittably true when carbon offsetting is at it’s worst. At its best though, it is a way to fund new build renewable capacity and that aspect you seem to be ignoring.

Instead of analyzing each point you’ve made Id rather just describe a model I see working for the future (which includes buying offsets) and get your response to that, that way I hope we can remedy the confusion:

Model: Take the earth as having a finite carrying capacity in terms of carbon emissions. Divide that quota into the worlds population (for arguments sake call it 1 tonne/person/year).
Now trade that quota such that the the 3% emitting third world population benefit financially by emitting below 1 tonne/person/year by the some of the 97% Westeners paying them for their quota. As a Westerner under a quota system I would have the choice to invest in reducing my carbon impact (conservation measures or produce renewable power) or pay to have a higher quota and then what I’ve paid to the developing country person could provide them with the funds to develop further generally (including developing carbon neutral power solutions). So the poorest benefit, the rich keep some of their power consumption if they are prepared to pay for it and the world carbon levels drop. We all win. Thats the model and its a good one.

(This model describes it as individuals – it a could of course be dealt with regionally or nationally)

Carbon offsetting would be a part of that tradable system. Eg. I (the Westerner) wanted to continue consuming a large amount of energy but didn’t want to pay a developing country person for part of their quota but wanted to generate my own renewable capacity.
Lets say I had no home and could not invest in micro generation – how would I achieve that? Well, funds to assist building/using new renewable energy capacity would be set up and could be paid for instead. That means that though I don’t physically receive the electric generated from renewable energy plants – someone through the national grid does – so a real carbon benefit globally has been achieved – and so my impact has been offset!

My definition of “Offset” in this context means: to cancel out ones carbon impact caused by one action by inducing another action which will reduce another persons impact by an equivalent amount –( indefinitely in relation to the specific action).

Tree planting does not really achieve this definition as space is limited and we couldn’t offset indefinitely on that basis. But, funding new renewable capacity generation as an “offset” is a real long term solution both in terms of the transition to a lower carbon world and as part of an ongoing sustainable industry mechanism after carbon levels have dropped down to an acceptable level.

What is your definition – because I suspect its just the word “offset” which is interpreted differently between us that has caused the confusion. I suggest you need to differentiate between types of offset rather than throw out all kinds in one sweep? Anyhow whats your definition please?

Hi Adi, the carbon offsets I was referring to are those that exist in the world today, you appear be referring to a theoretical model if I understand what you’ve said. That’s probably the difference.

I’m referring to those offsets you can buy today on the net for example, which government have set best practice guidelines for and which as I understand it, take place in the developing world, to be outside of the Kyoto mechanism. Be it tree planting, or energy efficiency measures or energy generation.

One of my points was, and is, that being responsible for only 3% of the worlds CO2 – offsetting the developing world could never be a significant part of what we need to do to fight climate change – contrary to what you said. You may have been referring to your own theoretical model of offsetting, but my point applies to that too. 3% is the total that is theoretically possible to ‘offset’ and way less than that can be achieved in reality. It’s not a big target to be shooting for.

Add to that my other concern about offsetting, it removes the need for people (over here) to make real changes to how they live – it’s an easy way out, cheap conscience salve and a recipe for life as usual – and I think offsetting has more harm to offer us than good.

We need to tackle the 97% that we are responsible for (in the West) – that’s the responsible thing to do.

If your ideas for a renewable energy fund/offset are about building in the UK, BTW, you’ll face another problem. If you build renewables projects using the ROC value, then government are mandating that it can’t be called green and must have grid average CO2 attributed to it – this is the new joined up ‘thinking’. That may not matter to your model, I just thought I’d mention it. Building without the ROC will double the cost of building and so half the amount you can build with any given sum.

I agree about the 3% is not worth offsetting and the 97% needing to take responsibility in essence..

However, in reality – third world countries are not limited to a potential maximum of “offsetting” only 3% because they can “export”.

Take for instance exporting biofuels (hopefully grown responsibly due to RTFO introduction and the like since April 2008). Such an industry (again regulated responsibly) could achieve carbon offsets in excess of 3% without even tampering with the third world’s own 3% consumption.

This would still allowing developing countries to financially benefit and not limit offsets to match only the existing levels of third world demand.

Take the same principle of “exporting energy to offset” and a Europe wide grid could extend to East Europe and achieve the same thing potentially – without the physical storage element (necessary in biofuel export).

At this point I wonder if I should start to call it something else – because really – although it could “offset” mathematically if say Russia exported renewable energy electric – its really still renewable energy production.. maybe I’m being a bit pedantic on the word “offset”. Nonetheless, Im still very sure about the point that the third world involvement in a carbon trading system is not limited to its 3% current demand.

I also agree with you on your gripe about offsets ..that even if third world did offset – say 15% of our energy consumption.. we still need to do a heck of a lot more here in the West.

I do worry about bio fuels and the price of food and availability of land to grow it though.

Not that I want to open another can of worms…

Cheers.

adi

September 20, 2008 at 9:58 am

Greetings.

Yup, lets conclude thew term “carbon offset” can mean either the product on the market right now (of limited value) or the concept of balancing carbon emitted by preventing equivalent emissions elsewhere (potentially good).

Biofuels have their place (and always have prior to industrial revolution) but strong international regulation is needed. That discussion warrants a new blog sub-title. So lets do that another time perhaps.

A term used to describe the practice of paying somebody else to reduce their impact, so that you can maintain your own. A way to justify maintaining your own status quo.

Cheers.

Adi

September 29, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Under your definition, I pay you (ecotricity) to reduce my own impact so that I don’t need to have solar panels etc. myself (= maintain my own electricity consumption and status quo). Hence the need to differentiate between good and bad kinds of “offsets”! (New renewable capacity from offset money is good).

Basically, you need to acknowledge the difference between different kinds of carbon offsetting. Otherwise it starts to make you look silly – and as you are a hero in renewables – I for one don’t want you to look silly by bad mouthing all offsets as if they were all of one generic base -especially when ecotricity is in a sense a kind of offset – in the best possible way.

I appreciate you have your own definition of offsets but I don’t think most people share that definition, so your dismissing offsets publically could be misunderstood.

Hi Adi – We need to be clear, this is your definition of what Ecotricity does, it’s not mine – I don’t accept it at all.

We don’t supply you (or anybody) so that they don’t install their own solar panels (your example), or reduce their own consumption, we don’t want the status quo maintained. On the contrary.

We supply electricity because people use it and otherwise buy it elsewhere with a different impact. We are not offsetting. We are building windmills to produce the power that we supply to our customers – it’s a direct relationship. When we generate a unit of green electricity and put it on the grid, a unit of brown electricity is instead not generated – it’s a direct substitution. The status quo is changed, our customers power gets greener, the UK emits less CO2.

To call this offsetting is ridiculous.

I think you’re operating in some kind of theoretical world, tangled up in semantics. Offsetting is the paying of someone else to modify their behaviour/do something so you don”t have to. And it can’t be good by definition.

Cheers.

Adi

September 30, 2008 at 12:12 pm

Hi Dale,

OK you call it substitution if you like, I’ll call it offsetting.

The dictionary in front of me describes offset as: “Something that balances, counteracts, or compensates”.

I agree its good to be clear – and clarity to me means to use the English language properly – not our superimposed meanings upon it.

It is not just a theory but a reality that the power ecotricity produces goes to some people, via the grid, who are not even paying a green electricity company. Consequently, your customer’s consume a “brown” unit of electricity which is “balanced” by the fact that someone else gets a “green” unit when they pay ecotricity for it. This “balance” is a strict interpretation of the word “offset”.

If you wish to continue with your own interpretation of the word “offset” other than what the dictionary (and most other people understand), then that is your prerogative. I find it frustrating that you don’t use the dictionary definition, but that frustration is more than “offset” by the fact that I find it liberating that you succeed in running a profitable company building wind turbines and doing a good thing.

I am not denying that there are products on the market labeled as “offsets” which are ineffective, we just need to be clear as you said.

Keep up the good work of building windmills, there is no confusion with you there!

I don’t think the dictionary is relevant here. I’m talking about ‘Carbon Offsets’, a term in commercial use, created by commercial entities to describe the activity they offer. This activity is what I’m talking about when I say I think it does more harm than good and it can’t be a major part of a climate change solution.

I’m not talking about the dictionary definition of offset any more than I am talking about your own theoretical model – I’m talking about ‘Carbon Offsetting’ as it exists in the world today.

Now if your dictionary had a definition of Carbon Offsetting… that would be different, but you’ve focussed on one word in the english language that forms only half of a commercial concept, something named by business – not english lecturers…

Cheers.

Adi

September 30, 2008 at 10:56 pm

Hi Dale

OK – not in the Oxford dictionary (yet) but other dictionary’s have the term “carbon offset”, like Allwords:

a reduction in carbon dioxide emission by a third party purchased by a heavy carbon dioxide producer as part of carbon emissions trading.

Another definition that includes renewable energy generation within the definition is, to quote:

“A wide variety of offset methods are in use — while tree planting was initially a mainstay of carbon offsetting, renewable energy, energy conservation and methane capture offsets have now become increasingly popular.” (see http://encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com/Carbon+offset for full explanation).

Look, lets forget the exact meaning for a bit, here is the undertone to my reaction of your offset dismissals: the commercial products that you are talking about are mostly full of flaws.. agreed. But to dismiss them fully is to discourage any action at all by some people.. in particular those people who otherwise wouldn’t do anything. In that sense I dont think you should dismiss that goodwill as it is a very negative impulse to squash an act of goodwill- however ineffective that act turns out to be.

Besides, as offsets get more scrutiny, they are likely to become more effective too. I think that if the carbon accountancy were sorted in line with any future carbon trading system, then purchasing offsets which fund new renewable energy projects would be a positive thing and part of any future international carbon trading system. I know that is living in what you call a theoretical world , but I think the design for international solutions has to be theoretical before it is placed on the table for discussion.

Anyway, until reality changes and an international agreement on a carbon quota is nearing completion this is pretty academic, so lets see what happens at the next summit and keep our fingers crossed.

The dictionaries that quote carbon offsetting (as opposed offsetting… :)) seem to give a pretty flat and conventional description of what exists in the world today. My target entirely, when expressing my reservations on the concept.

I understand your point though – very much so – that to dismiss goodwill is negative, potentially anyway.

The question we need to ask ourselves here is this: Is it better that some people are encouraged to do something (however meaningless and distracting from the real need for change) or is it better to take away that option for meaningless action leaving only the option for meaningful action?.

I’m 100% with the latter, take away the easy cop out – you call it goodwill, I understand that – but I think it’s more than anything else, an easy out and a dead end.

That’s where I’m coming from, in this I don’t think the benefits of offsetting (goodwill creation and the (potential) start of a journey for some people) – outweigh the ‘dis’ benefits of the easy maintenance of the status quo – the attitude that says ‘I know I shouldn’t do this, that or the other, and I will get round to changing how I live, but meanwhile I’ve taken care of the impact through offsetting so it’s OK’ – that’s the downside risk that outweighs the upside.

And remember, even if offsetting took off big time, it’s focussed on the developing world and that means just 3% of global emissions – IF we could make the entire developing world zero carbon….!

I think even if ecotricity approaches offesetting in what it does (a person buys some stuff that emits, but this is cancelled out by paying a company that promises to generate non-emitting stuff to equal it) the important difference is that ecotricity doesn’t claim that this somehow ‘offsets’ your impact. As Dale is getting at, the problem with offsetting may not be what actually happens (though even the tree planting etc can be malign), but the fact that it encourages people not to change their behaviour. Because ecotricity don’t make an ‘offset’ claim, sensible consumers will continue to try to reduce their consumption of electricity – which is a crucial aim. I still think ecotricty could do more to encourage people not to view them in a offset light, as that ‘rubbish’ analogy of dale’s probably isn’t too far from how lots of ecotricity customers do feel…? I don’t know

What I find interesting is that you’re so anti-offsetting Dale, and yet you’re using the same arguments against it that I’m using against EV’s – namely “the attitude that says ‘I know I shouldn’t do this, that or the other, and I will get round to changing how I live, but meanwhile I’ve taken care of the impact through offsetting so it’s OK’ – that’s the downside risk that outweighs the upside.” just change to “i’m driving / one day i’ll drive a zero-emission vehicle so it’s OK”. the status quo is pretty much maintained (OK, a little less badly than with offsets), and it’s still a dangerous distraction. Do you see this contradiction in your thinking? Why develop EV cars as “an easy cop out”, when you could instead emphasise “the option for meaningful action” – travelling less and by foot and bike? It’s a hypothetical question really, as we’ve gone over the ground so much elsewhere…

Adi

October 6, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Hi Dale

Glad you see that its bad to kill good will.

2 points:

1. I fundamentally disagree that the work like http://www.climatecare.org/ is meaningless. It has some validity although many flaws too.

2. We are going round in circles here on the 3% maximum offset thing with developing countries as I mentioned higher up on this page (entry 18.9.08)

“third world countries are not limited to a potential maximum of “offsetting” only 3% because they can “export” as an offset.

for instance by the export of biofuels (see entry 5.10.08 on thoughts on garages):

The Biodiesel 2020 study finds algae may hold the key to meeting large-scale, sustained feedstock shortages in the US, Europe and Asia. Using conservative estimates, algae can produce up to 10,000 gallons of biodiesel feedstock per surface acre per year vs soybeans at 48 gallons per acre and canola/rapeseed at 120 gallons per acre. Due to these factors, algae is attracting a great deal of interest and investment in the US, Europe and world-wide.

Algae are the fastest-growing plants in the world. Like other plants, they use photosynthesis to harness sunlight and carbon dioxide. Among biofuels related projects, algae is commonly grown in two scenarios. The first is in ponds or lakes (both open and closed). The second type is grown in closed, translucent tubes or containers also called photo bioreactors. In both cases, energy is stored inside the cell as lipids (the source for oil) and carbohydrates, and can be converted into fuels such as biodiesel and ethanol.

Hi Peter, in all the years we’ve been doing this nobody has ever compared offsetting to having electricity from Ecotricity. I’ve never heard it before and doubt very much that anyone equates the two at all. And for the good reasons I’ve already set out.

You suggest a contradiction in my stance, between electricity and cars, I don’t accept that. Here’s why:

Electric cars are not an offset, they are a direct replacement – internal combustion engine goes off the road, EV goes on. It happens in the same country in the same sector in the same pair of hands – you don’t get more direct than that.

2 – Maybe I’m getting the wrong end of the stick but how can developing world countries reduce their carbon output by more than 100% (which is just 3% of the global total)?

You seem to suggest by exporting bio fuels – are these the same bio fuels that are carbon neutral at best? Not sure how that creates carbon negativity

Cheers.

Adi

October 6, 2008 at 9:00 pm

Hi Dale,

In answer to point 2: The way it works is most easily explained by a model:

————————————–
Lets say global CO2 emitted by fossil fuel burning is 100 units of CO2 of which 97 units is used by the West and 3 units is used by under developed countries (UDCs). Lets say a sustainable level of CO2 is 50 units for the world.

The UDCs start algae farms and export say 15 units worth of biofuel oil to the west. The west uses that instead of fossil fuels in their power stations and so reduces it’s CO2 impact from 97 down to 82.

Result:

The UDCs still impact their 3 units but have sold offsets worth 15 units, making a net offset value of 12 units. As their export exceeds their own use, this makes the UDCs essentially carbon negative (this bit answers your question). The West having bought the 15 units as offsets (i.e. bought the carbon neutral biofuel) uses the biofuel instead of carbon positive fuels (fossil fuels) and so achieves a reduction of 15 units in CO2 emissions.

This leaves the world needing to still reduce its CO2 units by 35 units of which only the West can do (assuming the UDCs need to keep using their 3 units).

The elimination of the last 35 units is then the responsibility of the West which would still need to reduce CO2 consumption from 82 down to 47 units to reach sustainability.
———————————-

Of course this is oversimplified and ignores Chinas growth etc. But it does illustrate that developing countries can play a significant role (which is not limited to just equalling out their own levels of energy use as you suggest) and make money from exports besides (sold as offsets). It also shows that the main emphasis on CO2 reduction still lies with the West (by replacing fossil fuels with renewables and conserving energy).

I think this last point is what drives your passion against the offset thing.. i.e. that the reality is that the West are not taking enough responsibility (and that current offsets on the market hardly ever reach what is needed) .. and with that assertion I do not disagree with you. But its good to agree to disagree on the value of offsets altogether.

I don’t hold that against you. Its just you are simply wrong on not placing any value on offsets. They have some value at present and could have a lot of value in the future – such as model described.

I should suspend all criticism of offsets as the world knows them, and bio-fuels as the world knows them – because you’ve dreamt up a world in which it could all work much better. Hmmm…

Even if I thought it might pan out the way you say, I’ve too many problems with your vision of the future to be willing to do this.

Why grow algae in the developing world and ship it to the west? If algae is so efficient to grow then surely the EU has enough room to grow it’s own.

But more than that why grow algae just so that we can continue to burn stuff in cars at maybe 15% fuel efficiency, just because we might be able to and because they might (might) be carbon neutral.

We can do so much better than that using electricity, with 90 odd percent point of use efficiency.

And why get all tangled up in offsetting calculations and theories when we just need actual reductions at point of use. Changes of behaviour, not consumer cop outs.

You’ve got my objections to offsetting right in your penultimate para – and you’ve said nothing that causes me to change my view.

So let’s disagree as agreeably as we can.

Cheers.

Adi

October 7, 2008 at 10:47 am

Hi Dale

No – you are getting it a bit wrong. The model was there to explain the answer to your previous question -it is easier to explain that way and was not to be taken as a direct reflection of reality.

Nonetheless I will answer your points one by one:

1. No don’t suspend all criticisms of offsets but also don’t dismiss them either as they have some value now and could be of more value in the future.

2. You have a point about growing algae in the west, yes point accepted. To answer your latest point though: One main advantage of growing it further afield would be to generate forign income for developing countries to assist their development. (There are other advantages too).

3. Why grow algae and keep using inefficient ICE cars? Because we have to accept that we dont have enough time to change society so that EVs become the norm within the timescale needed for CO2 reductions – that is, if we are to prevent irreversible climate change which may result in 60% of all species diversity becoming extinct! Basically I support your idea of replacing ICEs with EVs, (you should know that as I gave you a ride in my EV about 8 years ago) – but its unrealistic on a global level to think you can do that quickly and time is of the essence here. Better to go for an interim solution which has a chance of realistically capping the carbon emissions and then do the transfer to EVs after that. I dont think the world has the resources and infrastructure (socially and technically) to achieve both within the time scale needed.

4. Ah – well I’m not sure we need to reduce our energy consumption as much as we need to change how we produce energy.. again behavioural changes take years if not generations and time is of the essence, thats why I see the role of offsets (and it is only a limited role) as a pragmatic approach – not the idealist one you are going for. I believe the only way to achieve the necessary carbon reductions in the time frame is by reaching an internationally agreed carbon quota and allowing the free market to meet that in whatever way it can (that includes offsets). Its all about time pressure and not about how it ought to be done in an ideal transition. Thats why I don’t throw out offsets as a route. I only wish the state of the world hadn’t come to this desperate point, but now it has – lets be realistic about what is achievable within the given time frame.

5. Glad you understand that I understand your view… now I can only hope that you understand mine – which fundamentally is brought about by taking a pragmatic approach due to time pressure. Do you get that at least?

I suppose you will probably disagree on something again.. but you will really need to convince me that change can happen quicker than I believe it can. Maybe you have more faith in people pulling their weight and changing quickly? Or maybe you dont believe the time pressure is as critical as the IPCC suggest? Which is it?.

Hi Adrian, I’m going to keep it short, we’ve been round the houses on this now, but you’ve added one new element – the idea that bio fuels are not the long term answer, but just a short term one.

It does present a substantially different argument. And I’m all for pragmatism. I don’t think replacing ICEs with EVs is some kind of theoretical nirvana though – I think it’s exactly what we need to do.

I’d make two points in response to your latest argument – that Algae fuels can help us transition to EVs –

1. My understanding is that the technology for large scale production of fuels from Algae does not exist today. If it did I think it would be dominating the world of bio fuels based on the numbers you’ve presented. So, is it more feasible that we can see truly huge scale algae farms come to fruition and replace the oil in ICEs – or more feasible we can see EVs produced in significant numbers, sooner than that?

EVs are in series production now, albeit low volumes and quite expensive on the whole. But they are also being made in China on a quite different basis, more cheap and cheerful you might say. I think EVs are off the starting blocks already, the technology exists in the world and mass production cannot be far away. The infrastructure for charging already exists of course. I think it the more feasible and faster route.

2. If large scale energy can be produced from Algae, let’s not burn it in cars with their terrible fuel efficiencies, let’s burn it instead in power stations and get two to three times more energy extracted.
That would be a reasonable transition to make.

But here’s a new thought. Power station ‘Carbon Capture and Storage’, though not yet in the world, will surely come. It has the potential to make fossil fuel power stations carbon neutral. What would it do to an Algae powered station? Actually make it carbon negative. That might be an interesting strategy for harnessing carbon in the world, by growing algae, and then capturing it and producing energy on the way. Just a thought.

Cheers.

Adi

October 13, 2008 at 7:59 pm

Aye, yup, all good points Dale. We’ll see which technology evolves faster. There are more vested interests against the EV coming on board quickly which may inhibit development (maybe has already – otherwise the Prius would have been made with the plug in recharge option?). Huge development in either EVs or Algae would be fine be
me.

The 2020 EU biofuels commitment also strongly pushes the algae technology development forwards and research is now testing algae for oil growing in sea water!

So there are 3 forces which may make the algae option surge forwards faster. Don’t know.

I like the carbon negative power station.. in fact thats where some of the algae may be grown initially – in waste water which couldn’t otherwise be used for anything else. Good stuff.

I agree Ive almost had enough of the offset discussion for now. I would like to just ask one
(aah dare I say hypothetical) question:

Lets say I started an offset scheme which ONLY placed all funds into an account until that account had enough money to actually finance a local wind turbine to be built and then commissioned that and gave it to a not for profit company to run. (The offsets would be very expensive to match the emissions). Would you be able to support that particular kind of offset scheme? (Accepted, it would not be typical of all the other offset schemes).

Hi Adi, all good points I think. With regards your hypothetical offset scheme, I’d have no trouble supporting it at all, except I’d have trouble with the name/description. I don’t think of it as offsetting at all, to me it’s changing the way power is made, green comes on the grid, brown goes off – it’s replacement of the bad with the good. Cheers.

Adi

October 29, 2008 at 11:47 pm

Hi Dale,

Cool. I’m happy to leave our carbon offset discussion at that for now. Hopefully definitions will be forthcoming in the future from the relevant authorities.

Zero Carbonista

This blog is about answers to the big questions - how will we keep the lights on, what kind of cars will we drive (will we drive?) and how will we feed ourselves - in a post oil world, and a world where we can't afford to keep burning things and throwing things away. Energy, Transport and Food are the three big issues.